I
take up my keyboard today to share with you, dear readers, a very poignant
editorial written seven years ago by the Oregonian
about the defeat of Ballot Measure 28.

Seven
years ago the Oregon Legislature did exactly what some of the leaders of the ‘No
on 66 and 67’ campaign, including some self-styled business leaders, are now
saying the 2009 Legislature should have done. They sent out a temporary,
across-the-board tax increase on all Oregonians, and it was defeated. As a
result, we cut 50,000 people from the Oregon Health Plan; we told thousands of
seniors and people with disabilities that we no longer considered them disabled
enough to receive assistance; and schools closed early all around Oregon.

The Oregonian
responded with a very poignant editorial, sections of which are reprinted
below. The contrasts between this editorial and today’s editorials are quite
astonishing. I hope that the Oregonian’s new publisher, as he familiarizes
himself with the state’s and his new paper’s history, takes the time to read
the 2003 editorial.

Today, the paper has staked its
reputation on the hope that the same business groups that oppose Measures 66
and 67 would throw their weight behind some temporary alternative. Seven years
ago, the paper observed that Measure 28 received “little or no encouragement
from political and business leaders.”
(Emphasis added.)

Today,
the editorial board suggests that if 66 and 67 are defeated, the Legislature
can somehow avoid painful cuts. Seven years ago, the paper said:

“The Legislature must not waste much time
refighting last year's budget battles and the Measure 28 cuts … in the end they
have no choice but to cut deeply into core services. Oregonians were warned
what would be cut if they defeated Measure 28. Honest government requires that
the cuts take effect, pretty much as promised.”

Today,
the editorial board has taken a stand against the grass-roots network of
parents, seniors, teachers, nurses, child care workers, home health care
workers and other activists that are supporting Measures 66 and 67. Seven years
ago the paper praised the “hundreds of
volunteers working phone banks -- and the panicked voices of Oregonians in news
stories about to lose their care, shelter or other services provided by the
state” for making the result in the Measure 28 vote closer than anyone
expected.

There
are, of course, a couple of differences between Measures 66 and 67 and Measure
28. Measure 28 was an across-the-board tax increase on middle-class Oregonians,
and, being purely temporary, would not, in the long run, have done much to
reverse our 20 years of disinvestment in public services. Measures 66 and 67
raise taxes on rich people and corporations, and, being partly permanent, are a
step toward reversing that trend. Oh, and Measure 28 lost; Measures 66 and 67 are going to win.

MEASURE
28 IS DEFEATED, BUT VOTERS DELIVER A MESSAGE TO LAWMAKERS ABOUT HOW HIGHLY THEY
VALUE PUBLIC SERVICES

Hundreds of
thousands of Oregonians voted to raise their taxes Tuesday -- even during a
recession, even with little or no encouragement from political and business
leaders -- to protect schools and other public services.

This voter
support for an income tax increase in Oregon wasn't nearly enough to push
Measure 28 over the top -- unofficial counts last night showed the measure
failing by about 10 percentage points. But the near-record turnout for a
special election and the relatively close vote should alter Salem's budget and
tax reform debate.

That debate
should no longer be about the least that Oregon can do for its public schools,
its human services and its public safety. Oregonians didn't vote that way
Tuesday.

Yet the budget
ax is now going to fall. Most of the burden will land on some of Oregon's most
vulnerable -- the mentally ill, the elderly and children …

Oregon
Republican Party Chairman Kevin Mannix sent out a taped message to 290,000
Republicans saying that the Legislature didn't really have to cut the budget if
Measure 28 failed. As Multnomah County begins releasing inmates, as state
police proceed with layoffs, as school districts begin slashing school days,
don't sit by your phone waiting for Mannix's next call.

The Legislature
must not waste much time refighting last year's budget battles and the Measure
28 cuts … in the end they have no choice but to cut deeply into core services.
Oregonians were warned what would be cut if they defeated Measure 28. Honest
government requires that the cuts take effect, pretty much as promised.

Even as recently
as a month ago, as polls showed Measure 28 with only about 35 percent of the
vote, the conventional wisdom was that the measure had no chance of passing.
Everything was stacked against it. The timing was awful: Oregon was still
locked in recession, suffering from the nation's highest unemployment rate, and
the ballots showed up in mailboxes side by side with Christmas bills …

The low-budget
campaign for Measure 28 came down to hundreds of volunteers working phone banks
-- and the panicked voices of Oregonians in news stories about to lose their
care, shelter or other services provided by the state.

Even with all
that, a substantial number of Oregonians were willing to have their state
become the first in the nation to approve a general tax increase to help offset
plunging revenues caused by the national recession. The vote is a positive
counter-message to all those people who continually insist that the only way to
balance the state budget is to slash services and force Oregon to keep racing
to the bottom.

We badly wanted
this election to show that change is possible, that Oregonians want something
other than the shortest school year in the nation, the highest college tuition
in the West or the smallest force of state troopers in modern Oregon history …

Now,
in this election, in 2010, we – the supporters of Measures 66 and 67 - are going
to show that change is possible. We are going to show that Oregonians don’t
want a shorter school year, a shredded social safety net, or further cuts to
public safety.

We’re going to fulfill the Oregonian’s
dream. It’s too bad we’ll have to do it without the Oregonian.

And then there is the McMinnville school district that sent home yes literature home with kids. This is a bias indoctrination of the programming the kids instead of giving them an objective education, and what takes place in communist countries and countries under dictatorial rule. It is also an illegal to use of public funds to campaign on ballot measures as the school district did. So Steve, maybe you should run right out and make a complaint with the Secretary of State’s Office.

Steve Novick wrote "[a}s a result, we cut 50,000 people from the Oregon Health Plan; we told thousands of seniors and people with disabilities that we no longer considered them disabled enough to receive assistance; and schools closed early all around Oregon."

Measure 66 and 67 will pass because voters want to preserve services especially education. Measure 28 failed because people feel as though they are already paying enough in taxes and they are tired of the perceived waste in government such as the BETC tax credits and overly generous healthcare and pension plans that are far better than what is seen in the private sector. The appeal of 66 and 67 is that many voters believe that they are taxing "the other guy" and when the "other guy" is someone who makes more money than them or a faceless business they apparently are willing to vote to raise someone else's taxes. There are certainly many who would be happy to vote to raise their our own taxes, but lets face it, they are a minority. So the playbook is to find a minority group that is unpopular whether it be lottery players, smokers, business owners or the rich and let the majority vote to raise the taxes on the minority. Sure a case can be made why these tax increases are fair and beneficial for the common good but I must admit I would prefer to see everyone's taxes go up and down together. What I find amazing is the negative response in relation to Phil Knights editorial. Phil pays more Oregon taxes than anyone else in the state and is one of our largest employers. Nike and Phil have been great for Oregon in so many ways. Nike helped make Wieden and Kennedy, Adidas decided to locate their North American headquarters here, numerous local suppliers, sponsorships, summer camps , the list goes on and on. The advantage of having large successful companies headquartered here cannot be easily measured but it is HUGE. As we all know Washington has far more. Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Nordstrom, etc. etc. Phil says our tax structure is one reason why people do not want to start and grow businesses in Oregon. I think he knows what he is talking about. Taxes are an expense. Businesses try to minimize expenses to maximize profits. As a business owner I can easily compute my tax burden in different states. For me, Oregon is one of the worst states. It is losing the competition with other states. It is not like our colleges are better that Univ. of Washington or University of Texas. It is not like our infrastructure is all that much better either but our income taxes are dramatically higher so a certain percentage of business owners choose not to locate in this state. It is what it is. Personally, I want businesses here. Losing Nike would be devastating. We are losing the competition amongst States and that lowers the economic opportunity for all Oregonians. The entire tax structure in this state needs to be changed. The question we should ask is what other state has "the best" tax structure for fostering economic growth? The other question we should ask is how do we tax the underground economy so that honest hard working tax paying Oregonians do not have to pay additional money to compensate for the tax cheats, tourists, and non income earning residents that all manage to use our services without paying their fair share of the costs. Phil says 66 and 67 are taking us in the wrong direction. I think he is right. The issue is not whether Oregon needs more tax revenue to provide high quality services. I think it does. The question is how should we raise the revenue and how can we spend it more efficiently. Our ultra progressive tax structure is failing to provide an environment that is conducive to wealth creation and retention. I am sure a sizable minority may benefit from it, but for the majority of us we have a lower standard of living than we would get if we had true reform.

Steve-
My business structure is a LLC partnership. All profits and my salary are taxed at Oregon's high income tax rate. Do not try to tell me the rate is low. Measure 66 will raise the rate to, if I am not mistaken, the highest in the nation. So lets add it up. Oregon wants 11% if 66 passes. The city, county, and tri met will want about 2.5% so my marginal state/local tax rate will be 13.5%. If I go to Washington I think their B and O tax is around 1.5% of sales which in my case will equate to maybe 2.5 percent of my income. 13.5% versus 2.5%. Does that sound like a good deal to you? Folks need to understand that someone like me RELATIVE TO LIVING IN OTHER STATES is taxed very, very high. That is a fact. Measure 67 does not directly impact me. Measure 66 does. Many people in my shoes choose not to live her becasue of the taxes and that impacts all of us negatively.

I might add that Washington seems to collect about $2700 per resident in taxes versus about $2100 per resident in Oregon. They manage to do this without an income tax. As the vast majority of us spend less than we make (gross) if for no other reason than we pay federal taxes then we would all be far better off taxed on our spending as opposed to our income even if the rates were the same. I would be happy to pay a 9% sales tax as opposed to a 9% income tax and the beauty of such as tax structure is that it captures the underground economy, spenders without Oregon income, tourists, etc and it also seems to be far better for economic growth. I think Washington has a 6.5% sales tax. I call that idea a win/win. Most of us Oregonians will pay less and the State will have more money for better services.

Here is a source. I was one of those teachers who lost days and contact time with my students when the election was lost. There is NO doubt in my mind that this time it will be even worse. If you don't care about education feel free to send a check to reimburse the state that gave YOU a full year of education.

Dude, Fred...did you even live in Oregon in 2003? Ever read Doonesbury? 18 days off the school year?

Because I worked in the legislature then, I had to answer calls from people whose parents with Alzheimers had been kicked off OHP and whose children with life threatening conditions had been kicked off OHP because they were "re-evaluated" and could adequately perform certain "activities of daily living". We raised the threshold on certain qualifications for being "disabled" and gave instructions to DHS to cut. We ended the "medically needy" program. Then we got calls from people who were losing their blood pressure medication, their insulin, their antipsychotics, their (fill in the blank-important medication). And all we could do was try to work with these constituents and the "benevolent" prescription drug companies to get them into a free or reduced-cost prescription program. Sometimes we were trying to call drug reps so that these people could get "free samples" to string them over for 2-3 months so that they could at least send in paperwork for these Rx assistance programs. It was mayhem.

In fact I remember the Oregonian writing a horribly sad and disturbing story about Douglas Schmidt who died after losing his seizure medication after budget cuts due to Measure 28's failure.

There's your evidence/source, Doug. In fact, I don't think it was 50,000 as Steve says. I believe we hemorrhaged 100,000 Oregonians from OHP between 2003 and 2005.

Steve Novick claims that the failure of Measure 28 in 2003 caused “50,000 people [to be cut] from the Oregon Health Plan; we told thousands of seniors and people with disabilities that we no longer considered them disabled enough to receive assistance; and schools closed early all around Oregon." There is some truth to these claims. In 2003 Legislature cut 10 percent of state school aid, causing 84 of the state's 198 districts to truncate the school year. Six other districts cut days from the year, but not from the end. But it also apparently true that In 2003-04, Oregon’s school districts accrued unrestricted general-fund balances of 15 percent of their annual revenues, or $526 million – nearly two times the cut in state aid. Effective July 2004, OHP halted new enrollments; on August 1 it restored them.

Most of the cuts threatened if Measure 28 failed evidently did not occur. Why? Because the state borrowed the difference.

Starting about April 2003, courts closed one day per week. Indigent defense money ran out so the state quit prosecuting most misdomeanors and C-Felonies from April through June 30. Remember the car thief who was arrested and released 5 times during that period of time? Remember the Meth epidemic and ID theft scourge that started about that time? Believe you me, the word gets around very quickly that no one is going to jail. The word from the courts this time is that if the measures fail, courts will again close one or two days per week, and indigent defense will run out of money in May. That means only emergency in custody serious crimes will be handled.

Here's what my Sen. Bruce Starr, republican, said about that 6 cent per gallon gas tax.

"These are tax increases that don’t grow government. These are tax increases that grow the private sector, that grow the economy, that lay the foundation from which we can come back as this economy recovers.”

Sen. Starr is the transportation ramrod for Republicans. This tax falls largely on everyone across the board of course (since businesses will pass it on to their customers, right?) With the benefits, according to Bruce Starr, flowing to private road and bridge contractors. You know....AOI types, through contracts bid out by ODOT.

So, I guess a recessin isn't a good time to raise taxes, unless they benefit your bankers??

To Republicans in Congress and in state capitals across the country: It's time to refuse the NRA's support and their money. And donations received in the past should be donated to organizations supporting the survivors of gun violence.